No principles of law are involved. No issues of the power relations between the three branches of government. No originalism. No textualism. No traditionalism. It's whatever rulings conservatives are unhappy with (which includes a whole lot of centrist rulings as well).

Media, take note.

Also, about item (2), where judges refuse to strike down laws, which could be totally legitimate from any constitutional perspective, just because they "subvert" conservative values. Got that? Values.

Various states have passed initiatives, voted on by the entire electorate, to do things like preserve forests, decriminalize drugs. And legislatures have passed domestic partnership laws. Entirely legitimate. And yet judges that do not strike down such laws are deemed activist.

It's high time to retire this meaningless slur.

CORRECTION: Apparently that entry was done as a joke by a recent non-conservative contributer (as noted in comments).

The entry for "Faith" is also illuminating. Take a look at the last entry on the discussion page:

"ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts?"